• news
  • WEDNESDAY JANUARY 30 2008 12:00 AM

The Buttocks are Not a Sexual Organ: ABC and the FCC

Submitted by Fatality

Edited by Fatality

Tags: ABC, FCC, censorship, nudity, NYPD Blue, television

I’m just grateful that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate the internet. And I’d bet that members of the Anal Sex and Ass Appreciation groups agree. Because, let me tell you, The Federal Communications Committee has something against butts.

And this isn’t just any grudge, it’s a rancor for whichthe ABC network might have to pay $1.4 million USD. The story goes like this:

In 2003, ABC showed an episode of NYPD Blue that showed images of a woman’s ass as she got ready to shower. The woman was Charlotte Ross, the character was Det. Connie McDowell. Some of you may remember the episode. If not, and once again, let me be grateful for the Internet, you can see screenshots here or the video clip here. Fast-forward to the present, when the FCC is fining 52 ABC stations for showing the episode and the nudity contained therein.

The FCC deems "sexual or excretory activities" shown in an "offensive" way before 2200 as indecent.

ABC has rejected the claims, saying the buttocks are not a sexual organ.



But that isn’t even the whole story – oh no! Because the FCC goes on to point out that the episode also portrayed some of the woman’s breasts. And for this partial breast and butt transgression, ABC may be paying upwards of a million dollars, as the United States has recently sanctioned a very large escalation in such fines.

The broadcaster has said it will appeal against the decision, which is the second largest indecency fine imposed on a broadcaster.

In 2006, the FCC imposed a $3.6m (£1.8m) against CBS for an episode of Without A Trace, which was settled for $300,000 (£152,000).



I know, I know, the argument can be made that, while one does not have to agree with the rules that are in place, you can’t argue against the enforcement of said regulations. But I’m still a little confused. And a bit humored, in fact, as I attempt to envision FCC officials – white and old and male – sitting around discussing, “Cartoon butts? Okay! Female butts? No good. What about tightly fitting, sheer material over a female butt? Hmmm…” I am perhaps oversimplifying the issue, but I still get carried away with such scenes.

-“Well, Dick, what do you think? Are buttocks more offensive than breasts? Which will scar our children more?”

-“And, hey, what about the value of the fines; how do we decide those? Should we base them on absolute or relative size? Do we charge more for more, how do they say, ‘junk in the trunk’? Or, what about the super skinny actresses with no meat on their behinds…should they be charged as much?”

-Ad infinitum

Fun, isn’t it?

In addition, let me highlight something that I find particularly ridiculous about this story: The episode aired in 2003. By charging the network such a high fine and bringing national (and international) coverage to the story, many more people are going to view the guilty body parts. I know I wouldn’t have seen the t’n’a without hearing of the story. Then, let me ask the perpetual (and probably rhetorical) question, “Is this about money or principles?” Does the FCC really care about protecting the viewers (from the allegedly potential harms of viewing such flesh), or are the fines predominantly created for the purpose of generating revenue?

That video clip and those images were definitely the least sexual things Fatality saw all day…

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
Hastur

Hastur

Eugene, OR
February 2003

JAN 30, 2008 01:09 AM

The religious right has well organized campaigns of complaints of indecency to the FCC. Imagine if the free expression movement were as well organized in opposing this censorship.

DexterMorgan

DexterMorgan

Miami, FL
January 2008

JAN 30, 2008 01:16 AM

StarBelliedBoy

StarBelliedBoy

Philadelphia, PA
December 2003

JAN 30, 2008 03:25 AM

Maaaan, that was on network tv?

bairdduvessa

bairdduvessa

Centerville, MA
April 2005

JAN 30, 2008 05:23 AM

*walks down the street....wow every person has an ass, as do most other animals.

formerviking

formerviking

Denver, PA
May 2006

JAN 30, 2008 01:30 PM

More then anything else , the one thing I hate about my countries ideas concerning censorship , is the double standard that nudity is evil but violence is not so bad . I never understood it when I followed stories about what was cut out of movies to get a R instead of a X , & I still don't get it . I guess I'm just not a fan of censorship in general . I feel the more truth that is out there available to be seen by everyone , the sooner we can all work out our differences . And that truth includes the fact that we all have genitals . Deal with it America , please .

Gillionaire

Gillionaire

Manchester, NH
February 2007

JAN 30, 2008 01:37 PM

I'm still surprised people finds butts offensive. Hilarious, sure. Attractive, depends on the person. But seriously, everyone has one. What's so offensive about that?

Salome

Salome

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

JAN 30, 2008 02:03 PM

It's shit like this that makes me want to leave.

Maxx

maxx

Los Angeles, CA
July 2002

JAN 30, 2008 02:38 PM

i love the most recent comment on the youtube video of that

who cares, im 12 and i've seen like 100+ porn videos. Everyone does it. Seein an ass is not a big deal. We got some ninth graders in the back of the bus giving head every day, not even kidding


hahaha! listen to the kid, people!

Ferretbite

Ferretbite

Mexico
September 2006

JAN 30, 2008 02:39 PM

If banning butts from TV means Bill O'Reilly won't be showing his face on it anymore, I'm all for it.

xfinitex

xfinitex

East Lansing, MI
August 2005

JAN 30, 2008 02:45 PM

Calvin: I wonder why other animals don't wear clothes.
Hobbes: If our naked pink butts showed, we probably would.
Calvin: Our butts are just fine!

hk85

hk85

Guerneville, CA
October 2007

JAN 30, 2008 02:52 PM

At we don't have to watch people being murdered on Network TV, because that would truly be heinus.

KingMike

KingMike

Westfield, NY
October 2006

JAN 30, 2008 03:47 PM

The FCC deems "sexual or excretory activities" shown in an "offensive" way before 2200 as indecent.

ABC has rejected the claims, saying the buttocks are not a sexual organ.



If the buttocks is not a sexual organ, then Dorsal is in trouble. How can you not find her ass sexy?

Seriously though, how can you be offended by looking at a butt on TV? If they are going to disallow this instance of a butt, then I don't want to see any diaper commericials with a baby's bare butt in it if the buttocks is a "sexual organ" and is deemed "offensive," before 10:00 PM. This hits on both the "sexual" and "execretory" as we all know what a diaper is used for.

And if this was such a big deal, why deal with it 5 years after the fact? Does the FCC apply to all television or only over the air broadcast television? If it applies to all television, Sir Mix A Lot, Wrecks N Effect, and The Black Eyed Peas and any channel that aired their videos better watch out because they have a lawsuit coming their way.

IDGAS

IDGAS

Boston, MA
March 2004

JAN 30, 2008 06:28 PM

When ABC showed Andy Sipowicz's (Dennis Franz) ass it may not have been obscene however, it was ugly.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JAN 30, 2008 06:36 PM

In addition, let me highlight something that I find particularly ridiculous about this story: The episode aired in 2003. By charging the network such a high fine and bringing national (and international) coverage to the story, many more people are going to view the guilty body parts. I know I wouldn't have seen the t'n'a without hearing of the story. Then, let me ask the perpetual (and probably rhetorical) question, "Is this about money or principles?" Does the FCC really care about protecting the viewers (from the allegedly potential harms of viewing such flesh), or are the fines predominantly created for the purpose of generating revenue?


Not that I agree with the FCC's stance, but this is pretty standard lag time for administrative hearings of this scope. The Bono "fucking excellent" fleeting expletive case from 2002 just got resolved last year, for example.

crispy

crispy

NEWSWIRE

Philadelphia, PA

JAN 30, 2008 06:37 PM

I remember watching this episode when it first aired (huge NYPD Blue fan) and the scene in question was like the first two minutes of the show. I remember thinking at the time, "CAN THEY SHOW THAT?!?"

So, yeah ... it was definitely a little risqué for prime time TV, but handing down a fine five years after the fact? Give me a break.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

featured interviews